Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Holy Schneikes

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


95 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Pittsburgh Steelers

Recent Profile Visitors

5,639 profile views
  1. Kalso didn't "voluntarily" retire in his prime to serve his country. He was fulfilling his ROTC obligation. That doesn't make Kalso's sacrifice any less, but it is a meaningfully different scenario. Tillman was a fairly unique guy who made a fairly unique decision. I also disagree that he was not a good football player - he was. He wasn't a HOF worthy NFL player though and he shouldn't be in the Hall as a player.
  2. They can pull the tag any time before the deal that goes along with it is signed. After it is signed, like Hankmoody said, Cousins is going to get that money from the Skins or another team they trade him to. The only other possibility is that Cousins signs a different deal with either team (obviously not going to happen with the Skins). I can't imagine the Skins will be dumb enough to do this AGAIN.
  3. To the folks concerned about Howard's situation this year... How much worse is it going to be than last year? From week 3 on (when he began to start), he was the #7 RB. On a 3-13 team with 3 different starting QB, all of whom sucked pretty badly, with very few good receiving options to open things up for him, he still managed to put up 5.2 YPC - good for 2nd in the league behind McCoy. When Jeffery, the only really good skill position player they had, went out at the end of the season the team sucked harder than ever, but Howard's numbers went UP. There is no guarantee he will repeat his success this year, but from a team and supporting cast perspective, there is a whole lot more room for them to get better than to get worse.
  4. The risk is real, but it is low. If he has a mediocre/slightly bad season, he won't get top dollar, but almost certainly someone will give him at least as much as his extension would have netted him in new guaranteed money. Cap will go up, and even a bottom half guy will command $30M in guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Similarly, if he has a bad injury, his price will go down, but how much? It's not like a back who shreds his knee and is forever "damaged goods". Unless he tears up his throwing shoulder or something crazy, it will drop him but not down to nothing. Too many teams need serviceable QBs. If he has a truly AWFUL season that indicates he's not really a viable starter going forward, yeah, he might end up regretting passing on the longer term deal. But that doesn't seem to be his mindset and it would really have to be a very bad season before it would drop him out of the range the Skins essentially offered him.
  5. They never countered, and I don't see why they would. The Skins (still) seem to be in denial and Kirk's team recognized that fact. Why bother when you have a perfectly good guarantee sitting right in front of you? All of the motivation to make a deal was on the Skins' side and if they never presented anything close to reasonable (especially until VERY late in the game), why bother to counter? I'm sure they talked about what it would take, but no formal offer was made because it was always fairly clear the Skins weren't going to seriously over-pay - which is would have taken to get the deal done. In their minds, the offer the Skins threw out there was AMAZING. But given the actual situation, it was mediocre at best. It was a bridge too far.
  6. I find this whole thing fairly fascinating. On one hand, I tend to agree that Cousins is NOT a top 3 or 4 type QB. He may not be top 10. So I understand not backing up the armored car to secure his services forever. On the other hand, even given that, it seems like the Redskins have badly bungled this. Even if EVERYONE agreed Cousins was not an upper echelon guy, the Skins still totally lowballed him in 2015. In theory, offers in the past shouldn't impact value going forward, but that's gotta stick in the back of Kirk's mind. Then they tag him, which by definition indicates that he's an upper echelon guy. I think they kind of assumed "everybody hates the tag, so we'll use it as a tool and nothing else". But the tag was PERFECT for Cousins and his team was smart enough to recognize it. I've always said that the tag isn't nearly as bad for players as it is made out to be, at least in certain cases. He got paid for one year (fully guaranteed) in 2016 about as much as they were looking to guarantee him for his whole extension originally. And now he can do it all over again in 2017 (only better). The Skins are now offering reasonable franchise money, but they handed over so much leverage early on that it only makes sense for him to sign if they significantly OVER-pay him which they don't want to do. They were trying to have their cake and eat it too, but got burned. They could have let him go or slightly overpaid him in 2015 (or 2016). They didn't believe he was a franchise guy in 2015 based on their offers, but used the franchise tag anyway and set themselves up for a lot of pain. I doubt Kirk WANTS to play on a year by year basis, the Skins just made that his best financial option and now don't want to deal with that reality. So he's already guaranteed 24M in 2017. So the Skins offer really boils down to 29M new guaranteed money (with unknown total money) for 5 additional years which is very reasonable, but something he could equal or eclipse fairly easily next year. Carr just got 40M in real guarantees for a new 5 year deal. Luck got 44M. Osweiler was guaranteed 37M at signing on a 4 year deal. So despite their claims of this massive of this massive record breaking deal (which from one perspective it truly would be), it doesn't take into consideration the reality of the existing guarantee. Oh and BTW, unless the Skins team gets even worse than they have been to date, no tag makes sense in 2018. Allen talks about a 3rd tag as if it is some kind of real bargaining chip they have, but Kirk would be thrilled to play for 35M guaranteed for one year in 2018 under the franchise tag again (79M in three years for a guy they don't want to give a lot of money to?). Not sure who they are trying to fool with that. Even the transition tag would be about 29M - about the same as the net guaranteed money of his 5 year extension offer. May as well get all of that money in one year too and then start again...
  7. The exact concussion concern scale: 1 not a big deal. 2 not that big a deal 3 not a huge deal, but a little concerning 4 Houston, we have a problem 5 This probably means football isn't for you anymore 6 Too late, the 5th one scrambled your brain so much that you don't recognize the 6th one is one too many Seriously, of course there is nothing magic between 5 and 6, but it most definitely DOES matter how many you get, and every additional one is worse - especially during a relatively short period of time. People WERE freaking out about the 5th one, and rightfully so. And now people are freaking out about this one. That doesn't mean he can't or won't come back. But every one makes it more likely he won't, and eventually the league or team doctors etc will step in and make the decision for him.
  8. I was initially outraged. I thought it was just another self-aggrandizing moment by a prima-donna athlete. I didn't think it was the appropriate protest. I felt it was disrespectful. But the thing is, there are very rarely protests that are 100% appropriate and effective at the same time. The whole thing still makes me queasy, and I don't really "support" the action. It's hard to say "I love America" ans then basically indicate the opposite by disrespecting the American anthem. Either you love it, or you don't. That doesn't mean you can't hate things ABOUT the country and still love the country - but is sitting through the anthem making that statement? Not to me. But I don't hate the whole thing as much as I did at first. I think the guy is mostly sincere about what he is doing, which is more than a lot of folks can say.
  9. I came in for this reason. That fro is MAGNIFICENT. Seriously. This white dude is not being sarcastic in the least, so jealous.
  10. Splitting hairs I guess, and I can't claim to be an expert, but my guess is that NFL players can be cut for any reason simply because teams don't even have to GIVE a reason. In this case, his performance will make any questioning of the reasoning for the cut difficult at best. But even if he was the best player in the league, they could still cut him if they wanted to and not say a word about why, even if it were obvious.
  11. Fair enough. We agree on most of that. I just very often see people talking about free speech as if that means you can't be let go because of what you say... There are written rules and there are unwritten rules. And the post you responded to may well be referring to a very similar situation. The "rules" would likely not be very specific in either case. And in Kap's case, they are likely to be tougher in general because of the very public nature of his job.
  12. Folks always seem to confuse these issues. There are considerable differences between... What is legal Yep, he's legal alright What is right Not for me to say... What is against the rules Probably not against any specific rule What you can get fired for In many states, nearly anything What you can get released from an NFL team for Pretty much anything You can apply the same questions and get the same answers for releasing a public statement saying that you support the legalization of raping children. It's legal and isn't breaking any specific rule, but it could easily get you fired and/or released from an NFL team. I'm NOT trying to equate the two positions, just saying that just because something is legal and within the rules, doesn't mean it can't have repercussions.
  13. I really like that post and I agree with you on many fronts. The league DOES care or at least wants to appear that it cares, or the rule wouldn't be in place at all. Some of the fans care as well, and I'm sure some of the players care too. So a lot of people have strong feelings on this. I also agree that folks who believe in the RR are likely to believe in affirmative action in general (although I do think there is a significant difference in that collegiate affirmative action tends to be in place because there is significant under-representation of certain segments compared to the general population - that is NOT the case here). My main issues are that many proponents aren't being honest with themselves about the goals and the reasons behind the rule. And many of the ones that are honest about them still have trouble defining what the actual goals should be. You can't solve a problem unless you clearly define what the problem is. The reason I mention other minorities is simply to try to force proponents to clarify those reasons and goals for themselves and others. Given the fact that AAs are actually over-represented in the head coaching ranks right now compared to the general population, that clearly isn't a milestone proponents are satisfied with. The only other alternative is what I have been harping on - that in terms of skin color, percentage-wise coaches should look like the players. If THAT isn't the goal, what is? Is there some magic percentage that is acceptable? If so, what is the basis for it? So without reasonable answers to the questions above I am forced to assume roughly equal percentages are the real goal. I have already stated the reasons why I don't think that goal makes sense. Vastly different required skill sets primarily. And I haven't heard any real reasons why that SHOULD be the goal. I just hear that it's a bad look otherwise. And it brings me back to the other minorities which become problematic. If the goal is to make the coaches and executives look like the players, why include Latinos and now women? There certainly isn't a problem there by the assumed guideline. There are no women players and there are no women head coaches. There a few Latino players and one Latino head coach. Asian Americans need not apply. So which is it? Do we want coaches to look like players or not? If so, why? If not, what is the goal? When have we solved the problem? I realize you said you were done with the topic and I respect that, but those are questions I would have for anyone who sees the current situation as a serious problem.
  14. But that is the unwritten goal. If the league achieved 50% Asian coaches and no African American coaches, do you think everyone would be satisfied? The whole "issue" is based on percentage of African American players vs percentage of African American coaches. So the rule may say any ethnic minority qualifies, but that isn't the real point or the real goal, whether folks acknowledge that or not. Can't have it both ways. If it doesn't relate to racial breakdown among players, mission accomplished - there are a higher than expected number of minority head coaches compared to the general population. If it does, the only discrepancy is African American coaches. All the other ethnicities probably round down to zero head coaches.
  15. We are just coming from very different angles on this. I don't care if a coach is a former player, because the two occupations have almost NOTHING to do with each other in terms of actual requirements for the job. Because of that I don't think the ratio of AA players and AA coaches need to be correlated AT ALL. There is no under-representation. None of the math you present is relevant to me because I strongly disagree with the underlying premise - that because a certain percentage of players happens to be of one race, the people COACHING those players have to be of the same race (or have the same racial breakdown). Should the trainers have the same racial breakdown? Equipment managers? Sideline reporters? As for the players, to be blunt about it, I don't much care what they think. Their anger is not going to get to the point where they decide they don't want their 5M/year paychecks. And I'm not actually convinced they even care about it. If a coach is good, a player will play hard for him no matter what color he is. I know some of the general public cares about this "issue", but again - are they going to stop watching the NFL because the percentage of black coaches dips below 70%? To me, the current situation really only looks bad if you aren't looking at it very logically. Let's flip the script for a minute. Just take pro players and their race out of the equation for the sake or argument. Now you just assume that the general population is more less equally capable of being an NFL coach. So you would expect that African Americans would be be represented in the NFL coaching ranks by right around the same percentage as they occur in the overall population - roughly 13%. But by your logic, that naturally occurring percentage would be increased to 68%. By what natural ability do you think African American people in general are 5 times better than Caucasians at coaching football? I can't for the life of me think why that would be. And again, something you haven't really responded to is how to handle other minorities. There are very few people of Asian descent in the NFL. Should they be barred from the coaching ranks? If we are matching ratios, they wouldn't represent one coach out of 32. Women? there are no female players, but I'd bet a woman could be a fine coach. These are the ridiculous natural consequences of assuming the the coaching ranks should have the same percentages as the coaching ranks. And if equal percentages AREN'T the goal, what is and why? What is the arbitrary percentage match we should be striving for?
  • Create New...